GOVERNORS
Governors: Elections, Powers and Priorities By Thad Beyle
This article traces the governorship in recent decades. It examines who the governors are, how they became governors and some of their recent political history. The author discusses the timing and costs of gubernatorial elections, as well as the powers these officials have and the priorities of our current governors. Finally, the arti- cle points out the need for continuing efforts to reorganize state executive branches across the country, especial- ly as states continue to maintain a myriad of other separately elected executive-branch officials.
The governors continue to be in the forefront of the state at age 74. Clearly, he was also the oldest activity as we enter the 21st century. With the incumbent governor to be defeated for re-election in Republican governors across the states serving as his the state, if not in the country. major supporters and guides, Texas Gov. George W. As can be seen in Table A, in the 427 gubernatorial Bush sought and won the presidency in the 2000 elec- elections held between 1970 and 2001, incumbents tion. He became the fourth of the last five presidents were eligible to seek another term in 328 (77 percent) who had served as governor just prior to seeking and of the contests; 256 eligible incumbents sought re-elec- winning the presidency.1 When George H. W. Bush, a tion (78 percent) and 193 of them succeeded (75 per- nongovernor, won the presidential election in 1988, he cent). Those who were defeated for re-election were beat a governor, Michael Dukakis (D-Mass.), who more likely to lose in the general election than in their served from 1975-1979 and 1983-1991. Clearly, presi- own party primary by slightly more than a three-to-one dential politics in the last quarter century ratio (See Table A). following the Watergate scandal finds governors as Between 1970 and 1993, Democrats won 202 of the major actors. 326 races for governor (62 percent). Then between Additionally, the demands on the governors to pro- 1994 – when the Republicans won races up and down pose state budgets and then to keep them in balance the ballots across the states – and 1998, Republicans during the two separate recessions of the early 1990s won 55 of the 88 races (63 percent). In the three most and early 2000s has made that governor’s chair a “hot recent election years, 1999-2001, Democrats moved seat” in more ways than one.2 Currently, governors back into the lead by winning 12 of the 16 races (75 have moved from a half-decade of an economic boom, percent). Democratic candidates even won eight of the in which they could propose tax cuts and program 11 races in 2000, when Gov. Bush won the presidency increases, to a period in which there is more demand in a very close race. for program support and less income to use. Easy times Another factor in determining how many governors have switched to hard times.3 have served in the states is how many of the newly elected governors are truly new to the office, and how Gubernatorial Elections many are returning after complying with constitutional Only 13 governorships were contested and decided term limits or holding other positions. Looking at the by the elections of 2000 and 2001. In seven of these number of actual new governors taking office over a states, incumbents were eligible to seek re-election, decade, the average number of new governors in the and six of them did run for another term, all in 2000.4 states dropped from 2.3 new governors per state in the The five winning incumbents were Frank O’Bannon 1950s to 1.9 in the 1970s and 1.1 in the 1980s. In the (D-Indiana), Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), 1990s, the rate began to move up a bit to 1.4 new gov- Mike Leavitt (R-Utah), Howard Dean (D-Vermont), ernors per state. and Gary Locke (D-Washington). Their average win- And now as we enter the first decade of the 21st ning margin was just less than 13 points, with margins century, we find that eight of the 12 states with elec- ranging from nearly 19 points for Locke to a tight 5- tions in 2000 and 2001 elected new governors (67 per- point win for Shaheen. cent), so these states are starting the new century out The one incumbent who lost in 2000 was Cecil with new leadership at the top. With 15 incumbent gov- Underwood (R-West Virginia), who was defeated by ernors term limited and three others retiring or seeking Congressman Bob Wise (D). In 1956, Underwood had a seat in the U.S. Senate, there will be at least 18 new the distinction of being the youngest person ever elect- governors elected in 2002. Thus, in the first three elec- ed governor of West Virginia at the age of 34, and in tion years at the beginning of this century, over half of 1996 he was the oldest person ever elected governor in the states will have elected new governors. We should
The Council of State Governments 135 GOVERNORS
Table A: Gubernatorial Elections: 1970 - 2001 Democratic Winner Eligible to run Actually ran Won Lost Number In general Year of races Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent In primary election
1970 35 22 63 29 83 24 83 16 64 8 36 1 (a) 7 (b) 1971 3 3 100 0 ...... 1972 18 11 61 15 83 11 73 7 64 4 36 2 (c) 2 (d) 1973 2 1 50 1 50 1 100 ...... 1 100 1 (e) . . .
1974 35 28 (f) 80 29 83 22 76 17 77 5 24 1 (g) 4 (h) 1975 3 3 100 2 66 2 100 2 100 ...... 1976 14 9 64 12 86 8 67 5 63 3 33 1 (i) 2 (j) 1977 2 1 50 1 50 1 100 1 100 ......
1978 36 21 58 29 81 22 76 16 73 6 27 1 (k) 5 (l) 1979 3 2 67 0 0 ...... 1980 13 6 46 12 92 12 100 7 58 5 42 2 (m) 3 (n) 1981 2 1 50 0 0 ......
1982 36 27 75 33 92 25 76 19 76 6 24 1 (o) 5 (p) 1983 3 3 100 0 0 ...... 1984 13 5 38 9 69 6 67 4 67 2 33 . . . 2 (q) 1985 2 1 50 1 50 1 100 1 100 ......
1986 36 19 53 24 67 18 75 15 83 3 18 1 (r) 2 (s) 1987 3 3 100 2 67 1 50 0 0 1 100 1 (t) . . . 1988 12 5 42 9 75 9 100 8 89 1 11 . . . 1 (u) 1989 2 2 100 0 0 ......
1990 36 19 (v) 53 33 92 23 70 17 74 6 26 . . . 6 (w) 1991 3 2 67 2 67 2 100 0 0 2 100 1 (x) 1 (y) 1992 12 8 67 9 75 4 44 4 100 0 0 ...... 1993 2 0 0 1 50 1 100 0 0 1 100 . . . 1 (z)
1994 36 11 (aa) 31 30 83 23 77 17 74 6 26 2 (bb) 4 (cc) 1995 3 1 33 2 67 1 50 1 100 0 0 ...... 1996 11 7 36 9 82 7 78 7 100 0 0 ...... 1997 2 0 0 1 50 1 100 1 100 0 0 ......
1998 36 11 (dd) 31 27 75 25 93 23 92 2 8 . . . 2 (ee) 1999 3 2 67 2 67 2 100 2 100 0 0 ...... 2000 11 8 73 7 88 6 86 5 83 1 17 . . . 1 (ff) 2001 2 2 100 0 ......
Totals: Number 427.0 242.0 328.0 256.0 193.0 63.0 15.0 48.0 Percent 100.0 56.7 76.8 78.0 75.4 24.6 23.8 76.2 Source: Thad Beyle, using information from The Book of the States, 1994- (p) Frank D. White, R-Ark.; Charles Thone, R-Neb.; Robert F. List, R- 1995, selected issues of CQ Weekly Report,1970-date and Campaign Nev.; Hugh J. Gallen, D-N.H.; William P. Clements, R-Texas. Insider, 1999-2001. See http://www.unc.edu/~beyle. (q) Allen I. Olson, R-N.D.; John D. Spellman, R-Wash. Notes: (r) Bill Sheffield, D-Alaska (a) Albert Brewer, D-Alabama. (s) Mark White, D-Texas; Anthony S. Earl, D-Wis. (b) Keith Miller, R-Alaska; Winthrop Rockefeller, R-Ark.; Claude (t) Edwin Edwards, D-La. Kirk, R-Fla.; Don Samuelson, R-Idaho; Norbert Tieman, R-Neb.; Dewey (u) Arch A. Moore, R- W. Va. Bartlett, R-Okla.; Frank Rarrar, R-S.D. (v) Two Independent candidates won: Walter Hickel (Alaska) and (c) Walter Peterson, R-N.H.; Preston Smith, D-Texas. Lowell Weiker (Conn.). Both were former statewide Republican office (d) Russell Peterson, R-N.H.; Richard Ogilvie, R-Ill. holders. (e) William Cahill, R-N.J. (w) Bob Martinez, R-Fla.; Mike Hayden, R-Kan.; James Blanchard, D- (f) One independent candidate won: James Longley of Maine. Mich.; Rudy Perpich, DFL-Minn.; Kay Orr, R-Neb.; Edward DiPrete, R-R.I. (g) David Hall, D-Okla. (x) Buddy Roemer, R-La. (h) John Vanderhoof, R-Colo.; Francis Sargent, R-Mass.; Malcolm (y) Ray Mabus, D-Miss. Wilson, R-N.Y.; John Gilligan, D-Ohio. (z) James Florio, D-N.J. (i) Dan Walker, D-Ill. (aa) One Independent candidate won: Angus King of Maine. (j) Sherman Tribbitt, D-Del.; Christopher ‘Kit’ Bond, R-Mo. (bb) Bruce Sundlun, D-R.I.; Walter Dean Miller, R-S.D. (k) Michael Dukakis, D-Mass. (cc) James E. Folsom, Jr., D-Ala.; Bruce King, D-N.M.; Mario Cuomo, (l) Robert F. Bennett, R-Kan.; Rudolph G. Perpich, D-Minn.; Meldrim D-N.Y.; Ann Richards, D-Texas. Thompson, R-N.H.; Robert Straub, D-Oreg.; Martin J. Schreiber, D-Wis. (dd) Two Independent candidates won: Angus King of Maine and Jesse (m) Thomas L. Judge, D-Mont.; Dixy Lee Ray, D-Wash. Ventura of Minnesota. (n) Bill Clinton, D-Ark.; Joseph P. Teasdale, D-Mo.; Arthur A. Link, D-N.D. (ee) Fob James, R-Ala.; David Beasley, R-S.C. (o) Edward J. King, D-Mass. (ff) Cecil Underwood, R-W. Va.
136 The Book of the States 2002 GOVERNORS also note that in the 1998 and 1999 elections, 14 of the When Texas Gov. George W. Bush won the presi- 39 winners were also new governors. The years around dential election in 2000, he resigned the governorship the turn of the 21st century are certainly proving to be and was succeeded by Lt. Gov. Rick Perry (R). Bush a time of change in the governors’ offices across the then selected Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson (R) 50 states. to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and Lt. Gov. Scott McCallum (R) The New Governors moved into the governor’s office. When Bush appoint- Over the past cycle of gubernatorial elections, 1998- ed New Jersey Gov. Christie Whitman (R) to be head 2001, there were five different routes to the governor’s of the Environmental Protection Agency, she was suc- chair by the 22 newly elected governors. First were the ceeded by State Senate Majority Leader Don 10 new governors who had previously held statewide DiFrancesco (R). When Bush named Massachusetts office. These included: five lieutenant governors – Don Gov. Paul Cellucci (R) as ambassador to Canada, he Siegelman (D-Alabama), Gray Davis (D-California), was succeeded as governor by Lt. Gov. Jane Swift (R).6 Ruth Ann Minner (D-Delaware), Ronnie Musgrove Then, following the tragedy of September 11, Bush (D-Mississippi) and Judy Martz (R-Montana); two named Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge (R) as head of attorneys general – Mike Easley (D-North Carolina) Homeland Security, and Lt. Gov. Mark Schweiker (R) and Bob Taft (R-Ohio); two state treasurers – Bill moved up to become governor. Owens (R-Colorado) and Bob Holden (D-Missouri); The New Jersey succession situation has been par- and one secretary of state – George Ryan (R-Illinois). ticularly interesting and complex. Having no other Second were four from the business sector: Jeb statewide executive-branch elected official, the line of Bush (R-Florida), Kenny Guinn (R-Nevada), John succession goes to the majority leader of the state Hoeven (R-North Dakota) and Mark Warner (D- Senate. So, DiFrancesco became acting governor while Virginia). Third were three mayors of cities within the still maintaining his leadership role in the state Senate state who won: Jesse Ventura (Ref.-Minnesota), Mike – sort of a “prime minister” type governor. Then, when Johanns (R-Lincoln, Nebraska) and Jim McGreevey his term as a state senator ended on January 8, 2002, so (D-Woodbridge, New Jersey). Fourth were the three did his role as acting governor. He was replaced by state legislators who won: Roy Barnes (D-from the Attorney General John Farmer, Jr. (R), who served one Georgia State House), Jim Hodges (D-from the South hour on January 8th, when he was to step aside and let Carolina State House), and Tom Vilsack (D-from the the newly selected majority leader of the state become Iowa State Senate). Finally were the two members of acting governor. Unfortunately, the state senate was Congress who returned to work within the state: evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, so Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) and Congressman the two party leaders – John Bennett (R) and Richard Bob Wise (D-West Virginia). Codey (D) – split the role of acting governor until Looking at the 320 gubernatorial races between January 15, 2002, when newly elected Gov. James 1977 and 2001, among the candidates, there were 86 McGreevey (D) was sworn in. It should be no surprise lieutenant governors (26 won), 70 attorneys general if New Jersey seriously studies the need to have an (17 won), 21 secretaries of state (5 won), 15 state treas- elected lieutenant governor, so such a situation won’t urers (5 won), and 11 state auditors or auditors general happen again. (3 won). Looking at these numbers from a bettor’s Three other governors originally took the position point of view, the odds of a lieutenant governor win- when the former governor left the office. Each has ning were 3.3-to-1, an attorney general 4.1-to-1, a sec- since been elected in their own right as governor. retary of state 4.2-to-1, a state treasurer 3-to-1, and a Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) succeeded to the gov- state auditor 3.7-to-1. ernor’s chair upon the death of Gov. Richard Snelling in August 1991. Dean has since won five elections to Accidental Governors the office and is retiring after his current two-year term There is one other route to the governor’s chair that ends. Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) succeeded to is quite prevalent at this time. When a governor dies, the governor’s chair in July 1996 upon the resignation resigns or moves on to a higher office, the individual of Gov. Jim Guy Tucker (D), who had been convicted on the next step of the succession ladder becomes gov- of two counts of illegal land deals he conducted prior ernor. What is interesting is that eight of the governors to serving as governor.7 Huckabee was elected gover- serving at the beginning of 2002 were “accidental nor on his own in 1998 and is seeking a second full governors.”5 term in 2002. Arizona Gov. Jane Dee Hull (R) suc-
The Council of State Governments 137 GOVERNORS
Table B: Total Cost of Gubernatorial Elections: 1977-2001
(in thousands of dollars) Total campaign costs Average cost per state Percent change Year Numberofraces Actualdollars($) 2001dollars($)(b) (2001$) insimilarelections(a)
1977 2 $12,312 $36,106 $18,053 N.A. 1978 36 99,981 272,428 7,567 N.A. (c) 1979 3 32,744 80,059 26,686 N.A. 1980 13 35,623 76,774 5,906 N.A. 1981 2 24,648 48,141 24,070 +33 1982 36 181,306 333,283 9,258 +22 (d) 1983 3 39,966 71,241 23,747 -11 1984 13 47,156 80,609 6,201 +5 1985 2 21,450 35,396 17,698 +26 1986 36 270,383 438,222 12,173 +31 1987 3 40,212 62,831 20,944 -12 1988 12 (e) 52,161 78,320 6,527 -3 1989 2 47,902 68,529 34,265 +94 1990 36 345,511 469,444 13,040 +7 1991 3 34,612 45,126 15,042 -28 1992 12 60,268 76,289 6,357 -3 1993 2 35,966 44,184 22,092 +36 1994 36 417,849 500,418 13,900 +7 1995 3 35,692 41,551 13,850 -8 1996 11 (f) 68,603 79,036 7,185 +4 1997 2 44,823 49,310 24,655 +12 1998 36 468,326 507,396 14,094 +1 1999 3 16,276 17,333 5,778 -58 2000 11 97,097 99,079 9,007 +25 2001 2 70,400 70,400 35,200 +43
Source: Thad Beyle. candidates. The result of this is that the numbers for 1978 under-represent the Notes: actual costs of these elections by some unknown amount. The sources for the N.A. - Not available. 1978 data are: Rhodes Cook and Stacy West, “1978 Advantage,” CQ Weekly (a) This represents the percent increase or decrease in 2001 dollars over Report (1979): 1757-1758 and The Great Louisiana Spendathon (Baton the last bank of similar elections, i.e., 1977 vs. 1981, 1978 vs. 1982, 1979 Rouge, Public Affairs Research Council, March 1980). vs. 1983, etc. (d) This particular comparison with 1978 is not what it would appear to (b) Developed from the table “Historical Consumer Price Index for All be for the reasons given in note (c). The amount spent in 1978 was more Urban Consumers (CPI-U),” Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department than indicated here, so the increase was really not as great as it appears. of Labor. Each year’s actual expenditures are converted to the 2001 dollar (e) As of the 1986 election, Arkansas switched to a four-year term for the value to control for the effect of inflation over the period. governor, hence the drop from 13 to 12 for this off-year. (c) The data for 1978 are a particular problem, as the two sources compil- (f) As of the 1994 election, Rhode Island switched to a four-year term for ing data on this year’s elections did so in differing ways that excluded some the governor, hence the drop from 12 to 11 for this off-year.
Cost of Gubernatorial Elections, 1977-2001(in thousands of dollars) Total campaign costs Years in 2001$ 1977-1980 $465,367 1978-1981 477,402 1979-1982 538,257 1980-1983 529,439 1981-1984 533,274 1982-1985 520,529 1983-1986 625,468 1984-1987 617,058 1985-1988 614,769 1986-1989 647,902 1987-1990 679,124 1988-1991 661,419 1989-1992 659,388 1990-1993 635,043 1991-1994 666,017 1992-1995 662,442 1993-1996 665,189 1994-1997 670,315 1995-1998 677,293 1996-1999 653,075 1997-2000 673,118 1998-2001 694,208
138 The Book of the States 2002 GOVERNORS ceeded to the governor’s chair in 1997 upon the resig- expensive at $24.89 per vote, followed by the Georgia nation of Gov. Fife Symington (R), who had been con- 1998 race at $21.51 per vote, the Hawaii 1998 race at victed of seven counts of bank and wire fraud commit- $19.27 per vote, the Alaska 1998 race at $18.35 per ted prior to serving as governor. Hull was elected gov- vote, the Virginia 2001 race at $17.93 per vote, the ernor on her own in 1998 and is seeking a second term Nebraska 1998 race at $16.89 per vote and then the in 2002. California 1998 race at $16.09 per vote. The Nevada, So eight of the 50 incumbent governors serving in Georgia, Virginia, Nebraska and California races were late 2001 and early January 2002 arrived at that posi- for open seats. The Hawaii and Alaska races saw tion as “accidental governors.” That is nearly one out incumbents successfully win re-election. of every six governors. In Table B, we show how the cost of these elections Finally, in looking at the current incumbent gover- has increased over time by converting the actual dollars nors, we have to note that while there is some diversi- spent each year into the equivalent 2001 dollars. Since ty in who they are, there remains a white-male cast to 1981, we have been able to compare the costs of each the group picture they provide.8 Including Puerto cycle of elections with the previous cycle of elections. Rico, there are currently six women serving as gover- In the 54 elections held between 1977 and 1980, the nor,9 and one Asian American.10 And if one looks at the total expenditures were just over $465 million. In the other statewide elective state officials as “the farm 52 elections held between 1998 and 2001 – two team,” the picture for minorities is rather bleak. Of decades later – the total expenditures were just over those holding the offices of lieutenant governor, attor- $694 million, an increase of over 49 percent. The great- ney general, auditor and comptroller, secretary of state est increases in expenditures were actually between the and state treasurer, only 15 are not white: eight are 1977-1980 cycle and the 1987-1990 cycle, when there black and seven are Hispanic.11 was a 45.9 percent increase. However, after this period in which it appeared that Timing of Gubernatorial Elections the cost of becoming a governor was going to continue The election cycle for governors has settled into a escalating, both in terms of expenditures by individual regular pattern. Over the past few decades, many of the candidates and the total expenditures by all candidates states have moved their elections to the off-presidential in a race, there was a leveling off of these expenditures years in order to decouple the state and national level in the 1990s. Between the 1987-1990 cycle and the campaigns. Now only 11 states hold their gubernatori- 1998-2001 cycle, there was only a 2.2 percent increase al elections in the same year as a presidential election.12 in overall expenditures. This suggests that these costs As can be seen in Table B, the year following a pres- have stabilized somewhat. Why? idential election has only two states with gubernatorial One reason is that the new style of campaigning – elections.13 Interestingly, since the 1988 election, the with the candidates developing their own personal winners in these two states’ races have been of the political party by using outside consultants, opinion opposite party of the president who won the year polls, media ads and buys, and extensive money-rais- before.14 Then in the even year between the presiden- ing efforts to pay for all this – has reached into most all tial elections, 36 states hold their gubernatorial elec- of the states. Few states will be surprised by a high- tions, and in the year just before a presidential election, price, high-tech campaign; they are commonplace three southern states hold their gubernatorial now. The “air-war” campaigns have replaced the elections.15 “ground-war” campaigns across the states. This sug- gests there may be some limits to just how much can Cost of Gubernatorial Elections be spent in gubernatorial campaigns – until the next Table C presents data on the costs of the most recent costly innovations or changes appear. gubernatorial elections across the 50 states. There is a Another possible change has been the increasing great range in how much these races cost, from the all- number of candidates who are either wealthy or who time most expensive race recorded in California in have access to wealth and are willing to spend some of 1998 ($134.9 million) to the low-cost 1998 race in this money to become governor. For example, in the Wyoming ($ 0.8 million). The California race was for 1998 gubernatorial election in California, three candi- an open seat and the Wyoming race saw an incumbent dates spent more than $34 million each in 2001 dollars successfully win re-election. in their campaigns.16 Two of these candidates won their But if we look at how much was spent by all the party’s nomination and faced off in November, with candidates per general-election vote, a different picture Gray Davis (D) the winner. The largest spender, Al evolves. Here, the Nevada 1998 race was the most Checci (D), wasn’t able to win the Democratic nomi-
The Council of State Governments 139 GOVERNORS
Table C: Cost of Gubernatorial Campaigns, Most Recent Elections Total campaign expenditures Winner Point All candidates Cost per vote Percent of all Vote State Year Winner margin (2001$) (2001$) Spent (2001$) expenditures percent
Alabama 1998 D ««« +16.00 $24,182,533 $18.35 $8,344,602 34.5 58.0 Alaska 1998 D « +34.00 2,650,850 12.04 1,053,516 39.7 51.0 Arizona 1998 R « +25.00 3,729,911 3.67 2,017,381 54.1 61.0 Arkansas 1998 R « +21.00 3,471,819 4.92 2,364,650 68.1 60.0 California 1998 D # +20.00 134,881,397 16.09 40,770,866 30.2 58.0
Colorado 1998 R # +0.07 3,893,080 2.95 1,805,412 46.4 49.1 Connecticut 1998 R « +28.00 9,139,986 9.14 6,538,726 71.5 63.0 Delaware 2000 D # +19.00 3,163,525 9.78 1,365,318 43.2 59.0 Florida 1998 R # +10.00 13,023,824 3.29 7,695,327 59.1 55.0 Georgia 1998 D # +9.00 38,552,618 21.51 11,873,854 30.8 53.0
Hawaii 1998 D « +1.00 7,854,665 19.27 3,977,137 50.6 49.5 Idaho 1998 R # +39.00 1,810,862 4.75 1,511,758 83.5 68.0 Illinois 1998 R # +4.00 26,279,402 7.82 14,434,311 54.9 51.0 Indiana 2000 D « +14.00 18,424,244 8.45 9,855,057 53.5 57.0 Iowa 1998 D # +5.00 8,446,837 8.84 3,101,452 36.7 52.0
Kansas 1998 R « +50.00 2,934,326 3.95 2,777,183 94.6 73.0 Kentucky 1999 D « +39.00 1,435,308 2.49 1,361,527 94.9 61.0 Louisiana 1999 R « +32.00 7,133,214 5.51 3,792,095 53.2 62.0 Maine 1998 I « +40.00 1,088,823 2.59 827,355 76.0 59.0 Maryland 1998 D « +12.00 11,123,740 7.24 2,620,649 23.6 56.0
Massachusetts 1998 R « +4.00 20,174,874 10.42 7,615,326 37.7 51.0 Michigan 1998 R « +24.00 14,203,525 4.69 3,859,147 27.2 62.0 Minnesota 1998 I # +3.00 9,515,580 4.55 678,296 7.1 37.0 Mississippi 1999 D # +1.00 8,764,481 11.47 2,930,946 33.4 49.6 Missouri 2000 D # +1.00 19,112,531 8.37 10,175,747 53.2 50.5
Montana 2000 R # +4.00 4,702,802 11.46 984,473 20.9 51.0 Nebraska 1998 R # +8.00 9,222,169 16.93 2,927,873 31.7 54.0 Nevada 1998 R # +10.00 10,791,556 24.89 6,396,911 59.3 52.0 New Hampshire 2000 D « +5.00 4,678,472 8.29 1,182,955 25.3 48.7 New Jersey 2001 D # +15.00 36,572,642 16.42 15,216,167 41.6 56.4
New Mexico 1998 R « +10.00 6,251,322 12.77 3,040,716 48.6 55.0 New York 1998 R « +23.00 43,895,835 8.80 19,711,544 44.9 55.0 North Carolina 2000 D # +6.00 28,754,695 9.77 11,244,928 39.1 52.0 North Dakota 2000 R # +10.00 2,356,842 8.12 1,146,753 48.7 55.0 Ohio 1998 R # +5.00 25,328,649 7.55 11,705,277 46.2 50.0
Oklahoma 1998 R « +17.00 3,199,899 3.66 2,484,898 77.7 58.0 Oregon 1998 D « +33.00 1,941,059 4.90 1,289,380 66.4 64.0 Pennsylvania 1998 R « +27.00 13,682,212 4.52 12,077,551 88.3 58.0 Rhode Island 1998 R « +9.00 3,153,018 10.29 1,477,117 46.8 51.0 South Carolina 1998 D ««« +8.00 9,939,202 9.28 4,162,761 41.9 53.0
South Dakota 1998 R « +31.00 1,477,193 5.68 896,146 60.7 64.0 Tennessee 1998 R « +40.00 5,491,700 5.63 5,368,842 97.8 69.0 Texas 1998 R « +38.00 25,355,319 6.78 21,328,030 84.1 69.0 Utah 2000 R « +14.00 2,223,276 2.92 1,989,117 89.5 56.0 Vermont 2000 D « +12.00 2,305,095 7.85 965,759 41.9 50.4
Virginia 2001 D # +5.00 33,827,538 17.93 19,981,899 59.1 52.0 Washington 2000 D « +19.00 6,698,391 2.71 3,860,736 57.6 58.0 West Virginia 2000 D ««« +3.00 6,659,868 10.28 2,872,109 43.1 50.1 Wisconsin 1998 R « +21.00 7,495,581 4.27 6,320,118 84.3 60.0 Wyoming 1998 R « +16.00 822,349 4.70 621,135 75.5 56.0
Source: Thad Beyle. «- Incumbent ran and won. Key: ««- Incumbent ran and lost in party primary. D - Democrat. «««- Incumbent ran and lost in general election. I - Independent. # - Open seat. R - Republican.
140 The Book of the States 2002 GOVERNORS nation. And the recent 2001 gubernatorial elections in sought. Hence, while some states’governors may have New Jersey and Virginia, which cost $36.6 million and seen increased budgetary powers, there were also $33.8 million, respectively, were the most expensive increased legislative powers over the budget that more races ever seen in those two states since campaign- than balanced out those increases in gubernatorial expenditure reports and data have been collected.17 budgetary power.
Gubernatorial Powers Governors’ Priorities One way to view what has been happening to Looking at the priorities set by the governors in gubernatorial powers is to look at the “Index of Formal their own 2002 “state of the state” addresses, there are Powers of the Governorship” first developed by Joseph several significant issues facing the states from the Schlesinger in the 1960s,18 which this author has con- governors’ points of view. At the top of their lists are tinued to update.19 The index used here consists of five the state budget shortfalls brought on by the faltering different indices of gubernatorial power as seen in economy and the resulting negative impact on state 1960 and in 2002.20 These indices include the number revenues. They are trying to stay away from the “T and importance of separately elected executive-branch word” of raising taxes to cope with these shortfalls. officials, the tenure potential for governors, the Rather, they are trying to bring forward ways to reduce appointment power of governors for administrative the costs of some programs. While they may try to cut and board positions in the executive branch, the gover- back on some of the major programmatic responsibili- nor’s budgetary power, and the governor’s veto power. ties of the states, demands for the states to do more in Each of the individual indices is set in a five-point the areas of education and health are mounting. And scale, with five being the most power and one being the the increasing concerns and potential costs of home- least. (See the notes to Table D for details on how each land security appear as a wild card in the current state- of these indices and the overall index were developed.) budgetary administrative and planning processes. The Over the four decades involved in the comparison governors are also pointing a finger at the sky-rocket- of 1960 and 2002 indices, the overall institutional pow- ing costs of the Medicaid program as a culprit in the ers of the governors in the 50 states increased by 20 states’ budgetary crisis. These arguments are always percent. The greatest increase among the individual encased in general laments over the condition of the gubernatorial powers was in their veto power (plus 61 economy, with some suggestions as to how their indi- percent) as more governors gained an item veto. vidual states might seek some relief. Further, in 1996, North Carolina voters were finally These state-of-the-state speeches give governors a able to vote on a constitutional amendment giving their “widely publicized opportunity” to paint a picture of governor veto power. For over two centuries, the state the current state of things from their perspective and legislature had refused to allow such an amendment to then to set an agenda for the state to follow.22 They go to the voters, as it would have been a possible curb have the attention of a wide audience of state legisla- on their power. It was approved by a 3-to-1 ratio. To tors, state administrators and employees, interest date, no veto has been cast by a North Carolina gover- groups, the media and the public. But some question nor, and it still remains the “shotgun behind the door.” just how good a vision they are presenting, and then The indices measuring the tenure potential of the just how successful they are in getting their suggested governor (length of term and ability to seek an addi- remedies adopted. A recent study of the 2001 guber- tional term or terms) and the number of separately natorial state-of-the-state addresses looked at how elected executive-branch officials showed identical 28 well the governors fared in one specific area of guber- percent increases in favor of the governor. The gover- natorial interest: teacher-quality proposals. In those nors’ appointment power over specific functional area 2001 addresses, 29 governors made 63 proposals to executive-branch officials did not increase very enhance teacher quality in their states. The results much.21 In fact, there are still a considerable number of were not heartening for them: they “pushed through separately elected executive-branch officials, in addi- 24 of their 63 teaching quality initiatives, scored a par- tion to the governors across the 50 states. tial success on 12 others, and failed outright on the The gubernatorial budgetary power actually remaining 27.”23 So it takes more than giving an out- showed a decline over the period (minus 14 percent). standing state-of-the-state address to achieve success However, we must remember that during this same in their goals. period, state legislatures were also undergoing consid- erable reform, and gaining more power to work on the Separately Elected Officials governor’s proposed budget was one of those reforms The states continue to hold to the concept of the
The Council of State Governments 141 GOVERNORS
Table D: Governors' Institutional Powers, 1960 vs. 2002 Scores Specific Percent power 1960 2002 change (%)
Separately elected executive branch officials (SEP) 2.3 2.9 +28 Tenure Potential (TP) 3.2 4.1 +28 Appointment Powers (AP) 2.9 3.1 +7 Budget Power (BP) 3.6 3.1 -14 Veto Power (VP) 2.8 4.5 +61
Totals 14.8 17.7 +20
Key and Notes: 5 = governor appoints, no other approval needed; SEP - Separately elected executive branch officials: 4 = governor appoints, a board, council or legislature approves; 5 = only governor or governor/lieutenant governor team elected; 3 = someone else appoints, governor approves or shares appointment; 4.5 = governor or governor/lieutenant governor team, with one other 2 = someone else appoints, governor and others approve; elected official; 1 = someone else appoints, no approval or confirmation needed. 4 = governor/lieutenant governor team with some process officials (attor- Sources: Schlesinger (1965) and The Book of the States, 2000-2001, 34- ney general, secretary of state, treasurer, auditor) elected; 37. 3 = governor/lieutenant governor team with process officials, and some BP - Governor’s budget power: major and minor policy officials elected; 5 = governor has full responsibility, legislature may not increase executive 2.5 = governor (no team) with six or fewer officials elected, but none are budget; major policy officials; 4 = governor has full responsibility, legislature can increase by special 2 = governor (no team) with six or fewer officials elected, including one majority vote or subject to item veto; major policy official; 3 = governor has full responsibility, legislature has unlimited power to 1.5 = governor (no team) with six or fewer officials elected, but two are change executive budget; major policy officials; 2 = governor shares responsibility, legislature has unlimited power to 1 = governor (no team) with seven or more process and several major pol- change executive budget; icy officials elected. 1 = governor shares responsibility with other elected official, legislature Sources: The Book of the States, 1960-1961,124-125 and The Book of the has unlimited power to change executive budget. States 2000-2001, 33-38. Sources: Schlesinger (1965), The Book of the States, 2000-2001, 20-21 TP - Tenure potential of governors: and Limits on Authority of Legislature to Change Budget, The National 5 = 4-year term, no restraint on reelection; Conference of State Legislatures, 1998. 4.5 = 4-year term, only three terms permitted; VP - Governor’s veto power: 4 = 4-year term, only two terms permitted; 5 = has item veto and a special majority vote of the legislature is needed 3 = 4-year term, no consecutive election permitted; to override a veto (3/5 of legislators elected or 2/3 of legislators present); 2 = 2-year term, no restraint on reelection; 4 = has item veto with a majority of the legislators elected needed to over- 1 = 2-year term, only two terms permitted. ride; Sources: Joseph A. Schlesinger, “The Politics of the Executive,” in 3 = has item veto with only a majority of the legislators present needed to Politics in the American States, edited by Herbert Jacob and Kenneth N. override; Vines (Boston: Little, Brown, 1965) and The Book of the States, 2000-2001, 2 = no item veto, with a special legislative majority needed to override it; 31-32. 1 = no item veto, only a simple legislative majority needed to override. AP - Governor’s appointment powers in six major functional areas: cor- Sources: Schlesinger (1965) and The Book of the States, 2000-2001, 101- rections, K-12 education, health, highways/transportation, public utilities 103. regulation and welfare. The six individual office scores are totaled and then Total = sum of the scores on the five individual indices. Score = total averaged and rounded to the nearest 0.5 for the state score. divided by five to keep 5-point scale. multiple executive in terms of how many statewide sion from three to five members. elected officials there are. In 2000, there were 300 sep- Only Maine, New Hampshire and New Jersey have arately elected executive-branch officials covering 12 a single statewide elective official, the governor. North major offices in the states.24 This compares to 306 Dakota has the most (12), followed by North Carolina elected officials in 1972. There were also 10 multi- and Florida with 10 each and Alabama, Georgia, member boards, commissions or councils that had their Illinois, South Carolina and Washington with nine members selected by election from districts within the each. Southern states tend to have more elected offi- state. These included governor’s councils in cials than states in other parts of the country.26 Massachusetts and New Hampshire, public service Each of these offices, as well as each incumbent in commissions in Montana and Nebraska, state boards of that office, has a continuing clientele and sufficient election in Michigan and Nebraska, and university support, so that proposals to reduce the number of sep- boards in Michigan (three) and Nebraska (one). arately elected officials do not fare well. In effect, these For a period in which there was much state govern- incumbents have a political death-grip on that office mental reform, including major executive-branch reor- until they retire, seek another office, or die. For exam- ganizations, the stability in the number of separately ple, in the last eight statewide elections in North elected officials is noteworthy.25 In the 2000 elections, Carolina (1972-2000) for the 10 council-of-state voters in Kentucky abolished their elected three-mem- offices, including the governor, only one of the 45 ber railroad commission, while voters in Arizona incumbents seeking re-election was beaten. These are increased the size of their elected corporation commis- indeed lifetime offices.27
142 The Book of the States 2002 GOVERNORS
Executive-Branch Reorganization28 tinue to walk to a different drummer than other states: State government reorganization is often a suggest- Nebraska, with its unicameral legislature; Virginia, as ed remedy to some of the problems a state may face. the only state to restrict its governor to one term; and Born of the “Good Government” movement in the New Hampshire and Vermont, the only two states early 20th century, executive-branch reorganization restricting their governors to two-year terms. These would seem to be a rather antiseptic and boring subject. states will continue to be noted in textbooks, govern- But, like trying to reduce the number of separately mental reports and news stories for their persistence in elected executive officials, it is an intensely political hewing to a singular direction. issue to those with a direct interest in state government. The rationales for a reorganization range from Notes enhancing the power of the governor to the need to 1 The former governors winning the presidency over the past three bring a range of agencies with similar subject matter decades were Ronald Reagan (R-California, 1967-1975), Jimmy Carter (D-Georgia, 1971-1975), Bill Clinton (D-Arkansas, 1979-1981 into a more rational structure, and, obviously, for eco- and 1983-1992) and Bush. nomic and efficiency reasons. As states muddle 2 For an analysis of governors trying to handle the impact of the through the current downturn in the economy and sub- early 1990s economic downturn, see Thad Beyle, Governors in Hard sequent reduction of revenues, reorganizing states for Times (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1994). 3 For a tough, critical view on this change see Jonathan Chait, economic and efficiency reasons may become an agen- “What Ever Happened to the GOP Governors?” The New Republic da item in some states. (January 14, 2002). There are four basic options states can consider in 4 The incumbent governors in the two 2001 elections, Christie terms of reorganization: Whitman (R-New Jersey) and Jim Gilmore (R-Virginia), were both 1. No reorganization. This is often the preferred term limited and could not seek re-election. 5 Portions of this section appeared in Thad Beyle, “Accidental option, as it does not stir up unnecessary politics and Governors,” Chapel Hill News, March 3, 2002, sec. 1, p. 12. indicates that the organizational structure is basically 6 Cellucci was also an accidental governor, moving up from being satisfactory or can be worked with. lieutenant governor when President Bill Clinton appointed Governor 2. Partial reorganization, where a few agencies’ William Weld ambassador to Mexico. However, U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (R-North Carolina) blocked this appointment from his position units are targeted for change into new departments, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. consolidated into existing departments or abolished as 7 Tucker was also an accidental governor, moving up from lieu- outdated. This often flows from a governor’s specific tenant governor when Governor Bill Clinton resigned after being agenda or a realization that the state is ill-structured for elected president in 1992. 8 See front page pictures accompanying Kathy Kiely, “These are a particular situation or responsibility. America’s governors. No blacks. No Hispanics,” USA Today, January 3. Reorganization affecting separately elected exec- 21, 2002, pp. 1A-2A. utive officials, where the method of separately electing 9 Jane Dee Hull (R-Arizona), Ruth Ann Minner (D-Delaware), Jane other executive officials is curtailed in favor of provid- Swift (R-Massachusetts), Judy Martz (R-Montana), Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire), and Sila Maria Calderon (PDP-Puerto Rico). ing the governor with more power. An ongoing debate 10.Gary Locke (D-Washington). in many states, the fact is that such reorganizations 11 Kiely, p. 2A. occur only occasionally for the “typical” elected- 12 In two of these states, New Hampshire and Vermont, the gov- branch officials noted earlier. ernors only have two-year terms, so their elections alternate between 4. Comprehensive reorganization, where an attempt a presidential and a nonpresidential year. 13 New Jersey and Virginia. is made to completely overhaul the executive branch in 14 Thad Beyle, “A Political Pattern or Happenstance?” South Now order to bring it up-to-date and to provide the governor No. 2 (January 2002): 2. with more control and power over it. Of the more than 15 Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi. 170 comprehensive efforts undertaken, implementa- 16 These candidates were Al Checci (D) ($42.2 million), Gray Davis (D) ($40.8 million) and Dan Lundgren (R) ($34.2 million). All tion has been successful in only one-third of them. dollar figures are converted to 2001 dollars to control for the effect of These efforts have been successful in a series of four inflation. waves over the 20th century, with about half of the 17 To see the gubernatorial campaign expenditures across the 50 states undertaking such endeavors since the mid- states since 1997, check the author’s website at http://www. 29 unc.edu/~beyle. 1960s. States are currently between waves, but as 18 Joseph A. Schlesinger, “The Politics of the Executive,” Politics noted, there may be some suggestions that it is time to in the American States, 1st and 2nd ed., ed. Herbert Jacob and do this, considering the negative impact of the faltering Kenneth N. Vines, (Boston: Little Brown, 1965 and 1971). economy on state budgets. 19Thad L. Beyle, “The Governors,” Politics in the American States, 7th ed., ed. Virginia Gray, Russell L. Hanson and Herbert Jacob, (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1999). Earlier versions of this Concluding Note index by the author appeared in the 4th edition (1983), the 5th edition One curiosity is that there are four states that con- (1990), and the 6th edition (1996).
The Council of State Governments 143 GOVERNORS
20 The 2002 data can be found in Kendra Hovey and Harold A. Hovey, 27 Thad Beyle, “North Carolina’s Majority Party,” North Carolina CQ’s State Fact Finder, 2002 (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2002): 106 DataNet, No. 4 (May 1994), updated to include the 1996 and 2000 21 The specific functional officers were those directing the fol- elections. Those 28 incumbents who did not run for re-election were lowing departments or agencies: corrections, K-12 education, health, either constitutionally restricted to a single term, retired from office or highways/transportation, public-utility regulation and welfare/social ran for another office. services. 28 Much of the following is taken from Keon S. Chi, “Trends in 22 Dan DiLeo in John Nagy, “Governors Batted Just Under .500 Executive Reorganization.” in 2001,” Stateline.org, January 29, 2002,
144 The Book of the States 2002